Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006
RESTRICTING INDIAN GAMING TO HOMELANDS OF TRIBES ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - September 13, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4893, the Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act. The bill before us improves upon the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) by restricting the interstate expansion of Indian gambling and including states and local communities in the application review process at the Department of Interior. I intend to vote in favor of this bill as it does improve upon the existing law, however I believe IGRA is deeply flawed and in need of more far-reaching reforms in the future.
Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 in reaction to an ongoing expansion of casino-style gambling on reservations. Following the Supreme Court's Cabazon ruling that states did not have the authority to regulate tribal casinos, Congress elected to establish a framework for Indian gambling in an effort to control its growth. Despite IGRA's passage, or some would say because of it, annual Indian gambling revenues exploded from $100 million in 1988 to over $23 billion in 2005 alone. Today, there are over 410 tribal gaming operations in 32 states.
IGRA requires states to negotiate compacts with tribes wishing to establish casinos. If a state refuses to negotiate, the tribe can sue or the Secretary of Interior can unilaterally grant a casino license to the tribe. In other words, tribes are free to operate casinos in states or communities that do not desire such enterprises. H.R. 4893 attempts to address this problem by requiring tribes applying for a casino license to enter into a memorandum of understanding with local communities regarding shared infrastructure needs, such as roads or utilities, and by requiring the concurrence of a state's governor. However, these provisions only apply on a prospective basis, exempting 23 pending casino applications from the additional requirements. I believe the bill should have applied to these applications as well. Furthermore, the underlying IGRA requirement on states to negotiate compacts or else have a compact dictated by federal officials raises serious constitutional and federalism concerns as a possible violation of the 10th Amendment.
I strongly support the RIGHT Act's ban on so-called ``reservation shopping,'' preventing a tribe that already has land in trust from acquiring non-contiguous lands for gaming purposes. I also applaud the bill's ban on out-of-state off-reservation casinos.
Mr. Speaker, the RIGHT Act is a good bill. While I would like to have seen a stronger bill that undertook more basic reforms of IGRA, the RIGHT Act does take several steps forward by involving local communities and states and installing limits on the expansion of tribal gaming off-reservation and across state lines. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and continue to work toward further reform in the future.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov